atman. (atta)identity with a mundane self which exists as a product of the 5 shandas.

samatman. (samatta)melting of the individualistic isolated self into sameness.

anatman. (anatta)replacement of any kind of identity with emptiness, complete dissolution of me and mine. vanishing of the 5 skhandas. is this the same as sunyatman.

sunyatman. (sunyatta)complete dissolution of all that one is or was. total emptiness.

is speculation along these lines of any benefit? could the linguistic roots of these words be taken to all be relating to a state of self/selflessness?

in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

Self is the object designated in dependence on the aggregates. In this sense the self exists conventionally but not inherently. Sunyata of the person is just this: Negation of the inherent existence of the self.

Tmingyr wrote: Self is the object designated in dependence on the aggregates. In this sense the self exists conventionally but not inherently.

agreed, though for most people there is intuition of a self, the self is dependent upon the skhandas. perhaps there could be a breaking up of this intuition, its replacement with a certainty of emptiness. in other words an experience of the reality behind the skhandas. emptiness, or abscence rather than presence.

Tmingyr wrote:Sunyata of the person is just this: Negation of the inherent existence of the self.

Tmingyr, could you please clarify what you mean by inherent existence of the self. do you mean its intuitive (sentiment/feeling) presence as defined by the presence of five complete skhandas. not yet broken up. if this is what you mean. then negation of that intuition would mean the breaking up or dissolving of the five skhandas?

white lotus. x

in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.

TMingyur wrote:Self is the object designated in dependence on the aggregates. In this sense the self exists conventionally but not inherently. Sunyata of the person is just this: Negation of the inherent existence of the self.

If self exists it cannot be negated. All that can be negated are various ideas about self.

experience of an intuitive/felt self can be broken up or dissolved. the breaking up of the five skhandas however is only the breaking up of an apparent self. at root there is only emptiness. breaking up of the skhandas is return to the origin, a place without any notion or feeling of I or mine.

in any matters of importance. dont rely on me. i may not know what i am talking about. take what i say as mere speculation. i am not ordained. nor do i have a formal training. i do believe though that if i am wrong on any point. there are those on this site who i hope will quickly point out my mistakes.